Free Exercise Rights of Capital Jurors

The Supreme Court has said that the Constitution permits trial judges to exclude from the pool of potential capital trial jurors any persons whose views on the death penalty would likely substantially impair their ability to reach an impartial verdict. This Note argues that the Court\u27s analysis to date is incomplete, in that it omits close evaluation of potential conflicts between such exclusions and the Free Exercise Clause. The Note argues further that a court should apply strict scrutiny to any state action, such as exclusion for cause, that burdens the use of religious beliefs in the mental processes of jurors. The Note then weighs several possible government interests that might be offered to meet the test of heightened scrutiny, ultimately finding them each likely to fail. It concludes by suggesting a revised formulation of the present standard that provides more protection for the religious liberty of prospective jurors

Is Local Consumer Protection Law a Better Retributive Mechanism than the Tax System

As Judge Calabresi has argued, preemption decisions are, at their core, a choice about which tier of government should have policy-making authority. In prior work, Mark Seidenfeld and I argued that the choice of whether or not to preempt state law decisions should be based explicitly on fiscal federalism considerations. The economic discipline of fiscal federalism attempts to measure the welfare effects of situating a given policy either locally, nationally, or somewhere in between

A Republic of the Mind: Cognitive Biases, Fiscal Federalism, and Section 164 of the Tax Code

In its efforts to guide money to the states, our federal government annually passes up more than $75 billion in potential revenue under a single provision of the Tax Code. That provision, section 164 of the Code, allows itemizing taxpayers to deduct the cost of the state and local income, property, and (to a limited extent) sales taxes they paid during the tax year. The eye-popping size of that number makes section 164 a perennial issue in tax policy circles, and as one of the deductions omitted from the Alternative Minimum Tax\u27s (AMT) parallel tax universe, the section is also a key component of debates about the AMT. Indeed, the President\u27s Advisory Panel on Tax Reform recommends eliminating the deduction to pay for its proposed AMT reform

Tax Fairness

This Article argues that, contrary to the consensus of economists and many legal scholars, the norm of horizontal equity in taxation has independent meaning as a default rule in favor of existing arrangements. Although it has long been said, and widely thought, that tax should be fair in its dealings with individuals who are situated similarly to one another, no one has been able to say convincingly just what that fairness comprises. As a result, the learned referees in the last major dispute over the significance of horizontal equity judged that fairness\u27s critic had decidedly won the day. Since then, there have been ever more critics, but no cogent, comprehensive defense. My defense is both theoretical and practical. First, I argue that horizontal equity is a special aspect of the revenue function in taxation. Because it enshrines the status quo before enactment of a new tax law, horizontal equity can be reconceived as a commitment by the authors of tax legislation to honor the past and future policy choices of others, with whom they are jointly engaged in a project of deliberative democracy. Alternately, horizontal equity may bejustfied by welfare gains from a shared agreement to leave certain controversial questions of distributive justice undecided during the revenue-raisingp rocess. Both oft hese rationalesl eave open-indeed,t hey clear the air for-arguments about the ultimate ends law, and tax law in particular, should serve in society

Enhancing performance during inclined loaded walking with a powered ankle-foot exoskeleton

A simple ankle-foot exoskeleton that assists plantarflexion during push-off can reduce the metabolic power during walking. This suggests that walking performance during a maximal incremental exercise could be improved with an exoskeleton if the exoskeleton is still efficient during maximal exercise intensities. Therefore, we quantified the walking performance during a maximal incremental exercise test with a powered and unpowered exoskeleton: uphill walking with progressively higher weights. Nine female subjects performed two incremental exercise tests with an exoskeleton: 1 day with (powered condition) and another day without (unpowered condition) plantarflexion assistance. Subjects walked on an inclined treadmill (15 %) at 5 km h(-1) and 5 % of body weight was added every 3 min until exhaustion. At volitional termination no significant differences were found between the powered and unpowered condition for blood lactate concentration (respectively, 7.93 +/- A 2.49; 8.14 +/- A 2.24 mmol L-1), heart rate (respectively, 190.00 +/- A 6.50; 191.78 +/- A 6.50 bpm), Borg score (respectively, 18.57 +/- A 0.79; 18.93 +/- A 0.73) and peak (respectively, 40.55 +/- A 2.78; 40.55 +/- A 3.05 ml min(-1) kg(-1)). Thus, subjects were able to reach the same (near) maximal effort in both conditions. However, subjects continued the exercise test longer in the powered condition and carried 7.07 +/- A 3.34 kg more weight because of the assistance of the exoskeleton. Our results show that plantarflexion assistance during push-off can increase walking performance during a maximal exercise test as subjects were able to carry more weight. This emphasizes the importance of acting on the ankle joint in assistive devices and the potential of simple ankle-foot exoskeletons for reducing metabolic power and increasing weight carrying capability, even during maximal intensities